Stop The Fast Track To A Future Of Global Corporate Rule. The Dangers Underlying the TPP and TTIP “Trade Agreements”

Sev­er­al major inter­na­tion­al agree­ments are under nego­ti­a­tion which would great­ly empow­er multi­na­tion­al cor­po­ra­tions and the World Eco­nom­ic Forum is pro­mot­ing a new mod­el of glob­al gov­er­nance that cre­ates a hybrid gov­ern­ment-cor­po­rate struc­ture. Humankind is pro­ceed­ing on a path to glob­al cor­po­rate rule where transna­tion­al cor­po­ra­tions would not just influ­ence pub­lic pol­i­cy, they would write the poli­cies and vote on them. The pow­er of nation-states and peo­ple to deter­mine their futures would be weak­ened in a sys­tem of cor­po­rate rule.

The Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion has been nego­ti­at­ing the Trans-Pacif­ic Part­ner­ship (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Invest­ment Part­ner­ship (TTIP) over the past five years (and?) is cur­rent­ly push­ing Con­gress to pass trade pro­mo­tion author­i­ty (known as fast track) which would allow him to sign these agree­ments before they go to Con­gress. Then Con­gress would have a lim­it­ed time to read thou­sands of pages of tech­ni­cal legal lan­guage, debate the con­tents and be banned from mak­ing amend­ments.

Fast track would dri­ve us down a dan­ger­ous path. The TPP and TTIP have been nego­ti­at­ed with unprece­dent­ed secre­cy. For the first time texts of inter­na­tion­al agree­ments have been clas­si­fied so that mem­bers of Con­gress have had very lim­it­ed access and are not able to dis­cuss what they’ve read. These are more than trade agree­ments. The por­tions that have been leaked show that they will affect every­thing that we care about from the food we eat to the jobs we have to the health of the plan­et. The fast track leg­is­la­tion could last sev­en years, mean­ing that more agree­ments could be rushed through Con­gress with­out open con­sid­er­a­tion of their poten­tial impacts, cement­ing cor­po­rate rule.

Giv­en the harm that has already been done to economies, human rights and the envi­ron­ment by neo-lib­er­al eco­nom­ic sys­tems required by the World Trade Orga­ni­za­tion and ‘free’ trade agree­ments such as NAFTA; this is not the time to be rush­ing into new agree­ments or to cede our pow­er to write the future of the plan­et.

We are in the midst of a crit­i­cal polit­i­cal con­flict over the future of glob­al gov­er­nance. Do we want to be ruled by cor­po­ra­tions or ruled demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly? This not the time to fast track , it is the time to step back and re-think how to con­duct glob­al trade and man­age the glob­al econ­o­my to pre­vent fur­ther exploita­tion and harm.

Twen­ty Years of Expe­ri­ence: Lost Jobs, Trade Deficits and Increased Inequal­i­ty

Glob­al­iza­tion was ini­ti­at­ed in its cur­rent form by Pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton when he signed NAFTA and the World Trade Orga­ni­za­tion (WTO). NAFTA came into force on Jan­u­ary 1, 1994 and the WTO became law on Jan­u­ary 1, 1995. Mod­ern trade agree­ments have had seri­ous neg­a­tive effects on the US econ­o­my. Reuters reports:

“Since the pacts were imple­ment­ed, U.S. trade deficits, which drag down eco­nom­ic growth, have soared more than 430 per­cent with our free-trade part­ners. In the same peri­od, they’ve declined 11 per­cent with coun­tries that are not free-trade part­ners. Since fast-track trade author­i­ty was used to pass NAFTA and the U.S. entrance into the World Trade Orga­ni­za­tion, the over­all annu­al U.S. trade deficit in goods has more than quadru­pled, from $218 bil­lion to $912 bil­lion.”

Trade agree­ments have also under­mined jobs in the Unit­ed States. Reuters con­tin­ues: “Near­ly 5 mil­lion U.S. man­u­fac­tur­ing jobs — one in four — have been lost since NAFTA and the var­i­ous post-NAF­TA expan­sion deals were enact­ed through fast track.” And, the Bureau of Labor Sta­tis­tics reports: 3 out of 5 dis­placed work­ers who found a job are earn­ing less mon­ey and one-third took a pay cut of 20% or more.

These are just two exam­ples of many of the neg­a­tive eco­nom­ic impacts. The impacts in oth­er coun­tries are also neg­a­tive. The only ben­e­fi­cia­ries are trans-nation­al mega cor­po­ra­tions which desire to move cap­i­tal and busi­ness­es across bor­ders with­out restric­tions. Trade agree­ments con­sis­tent­ly expand the wealth divide and increase income inequal­i­ty as transna­tion­al cor­po­ra­tions seek low­er wages and costs in order to increase prof­its.

The cur­rent glob­al eco­nom­ic sys­tem is unsta­ble because of the con­nec­tions between glob­al trade and glob­al finan­cial mar­kets. Inter­con­nect­ed­ness and a lack of reg­u­la­tion of finance cre­at­ed a cas­cad­ing world­wide impact dur­ing the 2008 finan­cial cri­sis. Around the world, this has led to tremen­dous eco­nom­ic dis­lo­ca­tion and revolts against the unfair econ­o­my and the finan­cial insti­tu­tions and gov­ern­ments that are respon­si­ble.

With this record it is not time to fast track more of the same rigged cor­po­rate agree­ments through Con­gress; it is time to stop and ask: How can glob­al trade be made to work for every­one?

At a Cross­roads in Glob­al Gov­er­nance

The eco­nom­ic crash raised doubts about whether inter­na­tion­al gov­ern­men­tal insti­tu­tions can han­dle the glob­al­ized econ­o­my. It result­ed in calls for trans­for­ma­tion of the gov­ern­ment and econ­o­my from both grass roots revolts protest­ing lost jobs, low­er incomes, aus­ter­i­ty, cor­rup­tion and an unfair econ­o­my as well as from cor­po­rate elites.

The World Eco­nom­ic Forum (WEF) began a Glob­al Redesign Ini­tia­tive (GRI) as a result of the 2008 eco­nom­ic crash (GRI is bankrolled main­ly by Qatar). WEF par­tic­i­pants saw glob­al­iza­tion threat­ened because there has been a loss of legit­i­ma­cy and inef­fec­tive­ness of glob­al gov­er­nance: Too many coun­tries, orga­ni­za­tions and peo­ple were open­ly crit­i­cal of glob­al­iza­tion and multi­na­tion­al bank­ing. The WEF blames nation-states, the Unit­ed Nations and groups like the G-8 for fail­ing to respond appro­pri­ate­ly to the eco­nom­ic cri­sis. In an analy­sis of the GRI, the Cen­ter for Gov­er­nance and Sus­tain­abil­i­ty at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Mass­a­chu­setts Boston writes:

“WEF is con­cerned that such wide­spread pub­lic skep­ti­cism can lead to wide­spread doubt about the under­ly­ing prin­ci­ples of the glob­al sys­tem. They rec­og­nize that when cor­po­rate lead­ers are seen as lack­ing morals, it does not take much for the insti­tu­tions of glob­al­iza­tion to be seen as immoral. In this sit­u­a­tion, it would become hard­er and hard­er for the G20, for the IMF, or for indi­vid­ual cor­po­rate spokesper­sons to com­mand respect and effec­tive lead­er­ship on glob­al mat­ters of con­cern to the Davos com­mu­ni­ty. They know that it would be increas­ing­ly prob­lem­at­ic if impor­tant mes­sages from the world’s elite lead­ers were ignored by large com­mu­ni­ties of peo­ple around the world.”

To save glob­al­iza­tion the WEF believes gov­er­nance must be redesigned. David Sogge describes their view in “Davos Man”: “When it comes to tack­ling glob­al prob­lems, nation-states and their pub­lic pol­i­tics are not up to the job. Their old, run-down insti­tu­tions should be re-fit­ted …” The WEF solu­tion is a greater role for mul­ti-nation­al cor­po­ra­tions in deci­sion mak­ing and the weak­en­ing of nation-states. They want the UN remade into a hybrid cor­po­rate-gov­ern­ment enti­ty, where cor­po­ra­tions are part of deci­sion-mak­ing. The goal is to end nation-cen­tric deci­sion mak­ing and include cor­po­ra­tions as deci­sion mak­ers.

The WEF points to how trade rules have stalled in the WTO as an exam­ple of the fail­ure of nation-state gov­er­nance. They believe by mak­ing cor­po­ra­tions part­ners in deci­sion mak­ing the ‘can do’ atti­tude of busi­ness will push these rules for­ward where the ‘fail­ure men­tal­i­ty’ of the state-cen­tric sys­tem stalls trade rules. From the per­spec­tive of people’s move­ments, this is an exam­ple of why we do not want cor­po­ra­tions to replace nations as deci­sion mak­ers.

The WTO has been stalled because their rules are opposed by peo­ple around the globe. There have been mas­sive protests at their nego­ti­a­tions because, for exam­ple, inter­na­tion­al trade agree­ments (mis­named “free” trade, real­ly rigged trade for transna­tion­al cor­po­ra­tions) have had a dev­as­tat­ing impact on agri­cul­ture by destroy­ing tra­di­tion­al farm­ing, forc­ing farm­ers into cities and cre­at­ing a down­ward depres­sion of wages. Social move­ments oppose poli­cies that pro­mote pri­vate prof­it over pub­lic neces­si­ties. A grow­ing world­wide move­ment led by com­mu­ni­ties most affect­ed by glob­al­iza­tion seeks anoth­er direc­tion.

In light of the fail­ure of the WTO, the elite’s push toward glob­al cor­po­rate rule is now being cod­i­fied into law through inter­na­tion­al agree­ments like the TPP and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Invest­ment Part­ner­ship. Under these agree­ments cor­po­rate sov­er­eign­ty will increase while the sov­er­eign­ty of gov­ern­ments shrinks and peo­ple lose their abil­i­ty to influ­ence pub­lic pol­i­cy. These cor­po­rate trade agree­ments will cre­ate a series of laws designed to aid cor­po­rate prof­its over the health, safe­ty, income and well-being of most peo­ple and fur­ther under­mine the already at-risk ecol­o­gy of the plan­et.

Nation­al and local laws will be required to be rewrit­ten to be con­sis­tent with trade agree­ments nego­ti­at­ed in secret. This “har­mo­niza­tion” will require a new bureau­cra­cy to review all laws and reg­u­la­tions for con­sis­ten­cy.

The prof­its of transna­tion­al cor­po­ra­tions will become so impor­tant that gov­ern­ments can be sued if their laws to pro­tect pub­lic health, safe­ty or the plan­et inter­fere with expect­ed prof­its. The cas­es will be heard in spe­cial trade tri­bunals, staffed main­ly by cor­po­rate lawyers on leave from their cor­po­rate jobs. Their deci­sions can­not be appealed to any oth­er courts. This makes the pub­lic inter­est sec­ondary to the mar­ket inter­ests of big busi­ness.

The WEF sees itself as the mod­el for future gov­er­nance writ­ing “The time has come for a new stake­hold­er par­a­digm of inter­na­tion­al gov­er­nance anal­o­gous to that embod­ied in the stake­hold­er the­o­ry of cor­po­rate gov­er­nance on which the World Eco­nom­ic Forum itself was found­ed.” The Cen­ter for Gov­er­nance and Sus­tain­abil­i­ty describes this in the con­text of the UN:

“This inte­gra­tion of glob­al exec­u­tives with UN diplo­mats and civ­il ser­vants was seen as a way to reju­ve­nate the accep­tance of glob­al­iza­tion. The think­ing is that, if glob­al­iza­tion lead­ers were more involved in the pol­i­cy devel­op­ment and pro­gram imple­men­ta­tion of the UN, then orga­ni­za­tions and peo­ples through­out the world may well look more favor­ably on the legit­i­ma­cy of their com­bined efforts.”

Peo­ple will react in hor­ror to the dystopi­an idea of the UN becom­ing a cor­po­rate-gov­ern­ment hybrid. Peo­ple already see cor­po­ra­tions wield­ing too much influ­ence at the UN and with­in nations. The WEF approach will inflate cor­po­rate pow­er, cre­at­ing a cor­po­rate neo-feu­dal­ism that will kill democ­ra­cy and the body politic.

How did the WEF arrive at this pro­pos­al that so nar­row­ly focus­es on build­ing the pow­er of cor­po­ra­tions, while weak­en­ing nation­al sov­er­eign­ty? The Cen­ter for Glob­al Gov­er­nance and Sus­tain­abil­i­ty describes the process:

“A key con­straint for the broad accept­abil­i­ty of WEF’s new sys­tem is the nar­row band of experts they con­vened to devel­op their pro­pos­als. WEF did not call open­ly for pro­pos­als. It did not invite a num­ber of key inter­na­tion­al con­stituen­cies to par­tic­i­pate in the process. And it did not even estab­lish a web­site for pub­lic com­ments. WEF select­ed its friends to work on its Glob­al Redesign Ini­tia­tive. Over 50% of WEF’s experts were work­ing in the US while advis­ing World Eco­nom­ic Forum on this project, hard­ly an indi­ca­tion of a geo­graph­i­cal­ly well bal­anced team. Even though GRI’s finances came heav­i­ly from non-OECD coun­tries, only 2% of its experts were work­ing in devel­op­ing coun­tries at the time. Of WEF’s friends, only 17% were women. This nar­row base has seri­ous con­se­quences. It under­mines the WEF claims that it tru­ly under­stands a mul­ti-polar world and that it has the abil­i­ty to pick the glob­al lead­ers of today and tomor­row.”

This process is exact­ly what must be avoid­ed in the debate on glob­al trade and why we mustn’t allow new agree­ments to be fast tracked through Con­gress. The cur­rent sys­tem has already been too dom­i­nat­ed by the inter­ests of mul­ti-nation­al cor­po­ra­tions and has exclud­ed the voic­es of those who are harmed by its impacts.

We need a broad­er debate on how glob­al­iza­tion should be han­dled. What is the role of transna­tion­al cor­po­ra­tions? How can transna­tion­al cor­po­ra­tions with larg­er wealth than some nations be reg­u­lat­ed? How do we ensure the planet’s ecol­o­gy is pro­tect­ed at this crit­i­cal time of the cli­mate change tip­ping point, mass species die-off, oceans under severe stress, deplet­ing aquifers, floods and increas­ing deser­ti­fi­ca­tion? How do we shrink the wealth divide that is impact­ing almost every coun­try, cre­at­ing wide­spread pover­ty and strife?

Twen­ty years into mod­ern cor­po­rate glob­al­iza­tion, we need to stop, think, dis­cuss and debate, not blind­ly fast track more of the same failed sys­tem. Fast track would per­mit pres­i­dents to approve secret­ly nego­ti­at­ed trade agree­ments and rush them through Con­gress with­out trans­paren­cy, pub­lic par­tic­i­pa­tion or real con­gres­sion­al review for the next sev­en years. This is the oppo­site of is need­ed.

Sim­i­lar Rhetoric, Dif­fer­ent Visions for the Future

There is a shared frus­tra­tion in the glob­al com­mu­ni­ty with the inabil­i­ty of gov­ern­ments and inter­na­tion­al orga­ni­za­tions to respond to the glob­al finan­cial cri­sis. The Unit­ed Nations has short­com­ings. As the Cen­ter got Glob­al Gov­er­nance and Sus­tain­abil­i­ty puts it:

“Some are frus­trat­ed with the inter­na­tion­al sys­tem because urgent state func­tions in the inter­na­tion­al are­na are not solved by the UN sys­tem. There are wars and the UN can­not stop them. There are major eco­log­i­cal cat­a­stro­phes and the inter­na­tion­al sys­tem can­not get relief sup­plies into the affect­ed areas fast enough. There are starv­ing peo­ple in Africa and the IGOs do not pre­vent their unnec­es­sary deaths.”

The WEF uses lan­guage very sim­i­lar to what social move­ments use. For exam­ple, the WEF claims it seeks “bot­tom-up” deci­sion-mak­ing, but does not define what that would look like. For social move­ments, this means less hier­ar­chy, pub­lic par­tic­i­pa­tion, trans­paren­cy, democ­ra­cy and gov­ern­ments lis­ten­ing to the peo­ple at the bot­tom, rather than tak­ing their cue from the elites at the top.

The WEF pro­motes a phi­los­o­phy couched in the con­cept of “mul­ti-stake­holderism,” anoth­er idea con­sis­tent with the view of social move­ments that the world is not unipo­lar, it has many actors. The WEF uses this con­cept to give transna­tion­al cor­po­ra­tions, unde­mo­c­ra­t­ic non-state actors, deci­sion-mak­ing pow­er, while social move­ments see big busi­ness already hav­ing too much influ­ence.

Mul­ti-nation­al cor­po­ra­tions wield great influ­ence over the glob­al econ­o­my. They decide the dis­tri­b­u­tion of vital neces­si­ties, e.g. the prices and quan­ti­ties of food and med­i­cine, how much work­ers will be paid as well as the dis­tri­b­u­tion of wealth and the selec­tion of prod­ucts to be man­u­fac­tured and where. Con­trol of inter­na­tion­al mar­kets is more in the deci­sion-mak­ing pow­er of transna­tion­al cor­po­ra­tions than of gov­ern­ments. WEF sees this as a rea­son to for­mal­ize the deci­sion mak­ing pow­er of transna­tion­al cor­po­ra­tions, mak­ing them part of gov­ern­ment, while people’s move­ments see a need to expand pub­lic par­tic­i­pa­tion in gov­ern­ment to act in the pub­lic inter­est rather than the pri­vate inter­est for com­mer­cial prof­it.

Which Path For­ward? What You Can Do

David Sogge writes in the “State of Davos” that “By cus­tom and by law, the for­mal man­age­ment of inter­na­tion­al affairs is a mat­ter for sov­er­eign nations and their rep­re­sen­ta­tives.” He points out “the UN Char­ter begins with ‘We the peo­ples’ and affirms the ‘equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.’”

As glob­al­iza­tion begins its third decade, the ques­tion before us is, do we want cor­po­rate rule or people’s rule? Is the wealth of a few more impor­tant than human rights? What can be done to empow­er peo­ple? Should the nation-state become a thing of the past and cor­po­rate sov­er­eign­ty reign, or is there anoth­er path? This is a debate that can­not be fast tracked; it must be brought into the open before trade agree­ments cement cor­po­rate rule for decades to come.

We urge peo­ple to put their effort into stop­ping fast track leg­is­la­tion in Con­gress. This will not be easy because it is high on the president’s agen­da, many pro-busi­ness leg­is­la­tors and enti­ties like the Cham­ber of Con­gress. It can only be stopped if peo­ple work togeth­er per­sis­tent­ly to oppose it. Get involved here.

We expect that as fast track leg­is­la­tion moves through Con­gress, the White House and cor­po­rate lob­by­ists will inun­date mem­bers of Con­gress with promis­es in exchange for votes. In the past, votes were held open past the legal time lim­it as mem­bers of Con­gress were picked off one by one until there were enough votes to pass.

We need to main­tain per­sis­tent pres­sure on Con­gress to oppose fast track. When we stop fast track, there should be a broad dis­cus­sion of our vision for a glob­al­ized world struc­tured to sup­port uni­ver­sal human rights and pro­tec­tion of the plan­et.

Agenda 21 News Ceases Publication

Freedom Advocates, publisher of Agenda 21 News, has decided to cease further publication of Agenda 21 News posts. This discontinuation of the Agenda 21 News Digest takes effect immediately. Agenda21News.com will remain live for at least a month, so that those who would like to review or download articles can do so.

We would like to acknowledge the fine work performed by Katherine Lehman in editing the publication for the last year.

We encourage readers to become aware of two other Agenda 21 related websites to provide you with regular Agenda 21 news inputs:

Thank you for your interest in Agenda 21 News.

Agenda 21 — Sustainable Development

To help keep you up-to-date on the transformation, Agenda21News delivers relevant news and information. You will see concrete examples and explanations of Sustainable Development and its many faces - Smart Growth, Regionalism, Charter Schools, Common Core, ICLEI, the Wildlands Network, Public-Private Partnerships, and much more.

In summary, Sustainable Development seeks (1) the abolition of private property; (2) "global citizenship” with allegiance to a tyrannical system; (3) complete top down control utilizing technology (technocracy) and neighborhood snitches; and (4) to create discordance within the human population.